PCM

I could say "Well, DUH!" but I won't.

Damn it feels good to get the W -- espcially this win at this venue.

Sioux win 4-1.

Sioux are 6-0 when they score 4 or more goals. I don't think that's a coincidence.

If we get the win, I'll like them, too.

Now that was a penalty I did not see.

Nice shift by the all-frosh line.

A two-goal lead in the third? I can't stand it!

All right ANDREW!

I'm sorry, but that WAS interference. Need to play smarter than that with a 1-goal lead.

I said "watch in person." In other words, being at the game. I know it's being Webcast.

Do you suppose this game is as much fun to watch in person as it is to listen to on the radio?

I agree. I'm just not buying idea that the NCAA would treat UND like it treated UI if we did happen to become the Dakotans. The NCAA is obviously determined to act as a surrogate for the Sioux tribes. If the real, live, still-in-existence Dakota Sioux complained, I'm guessing that would be enough for Myles Brand and company to keep UND on the NCAA's list. In that respect, UND's situation is very different from the Illinois situation. Plus, the NCAA has consistently shown that it's decisons have little to do with logic or treating members equally. I suspect that you're right about that -- unfortunately.

I guess it's time for another Sioux short-hander.

The NCAA continues to tell every American Indian who disagrees with its action that -- after 30 years of debate -- they are incapable of knowing their own minds and understanding the issue.

And you look good in it, too.

From the New York Times: Bonding Over a Mascot

If it's on, I'm not hearing it. The last I heard, there was going to be show after Christmas. Apparently not.

No, not exactly. That's only part of the reason that the NCAA allowed the University of Illinois to maintain the Fighting Illini nickname. This entry from Wikipedia states the full reason. Based on what Myles Brand has stated in the past, whether or not the NCAA continues to act as a surrogate for the Sioux tribes on this issue is largely dependent on whether representatives of those tribes continue to complain about UND's nickname. Personally, I find it rather diffiuclt to believe that anyone who objects to the use of "Sioux" would go along with "Dakotans."

I think you need to question the system USA Hockey uses for selecting, coaching and training these teams. It seems to be very hit and miss -- mostly miss.

There is a Dakota tribe. And because that tribe opposes UND's use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, I doubt that it would look any more favorably on using the Dakotans as a moniker.

The difference is that the U of I was able to convince the NCAA that the Fighting Illini nickname had nothing to do with American Indians. UND is not in that position, as far as I know.

I don't know if that name would pass muster with Myles Brand. He said on one of the "Monday with Myles" shows at the NCAA Double-A Zone blog that any nickname with the word "red" in it meant the name was related to scalping. Now, there are quite a few teams that use the word "red" as part of their nicknames, but I suspect that Myles would apply his own unique interpretation to UND, especially if certain people complained. If UND said the reference to red was intended to honor communisim, Myles would probably be okay with it.

You are correct. "Dakota" is a word from the Siouan languages while "Sioux" is an Ojibwa name derived from a French word. So what would happen if UND called its athletic teams the Dakotans?

I understand your point. However, I agree with Jim Dahl. Foisting a new nickname on the athletic teams without any consultation or discussion among students, faculty, staff, alumni and athletes would be the height of idiocy.